#SupremeCourtJudgement

[laweducation]

शायरा बानो बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया (ए.आई.आर. 2017 एस.सी. 4609) | तीन तलाक

सायरा बानो बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया (ए.आई.आर. 2017 एस. सी. 4609) - सायरा बानो के प्रकरण को तीन तलाक केस के नाम से भी जाना जाता है, इस प्रकरण में न्यायालय द्वारा एक एतिहासिक निर्णय दिया गया जिसमे वर्षो से विवादों में चली आ रही तीन तलाक की प्रथा को पूर्ण रूप से समाप्त करते हुए न्यायालय द्वारा 3:2 के बहुमत से इसे अपने निर्णय दिनांक 22-08-2017 को तीन तलाक अर्थात् तलाक-ए-बिद्दत को अवैध एवं असंवैधानिक मानते हुए अपास्त (Set aside) कर दिया गया। न्यायमूर्ति रोहिंटन फली नरीमन ने इस प्रकरण में कहा कि - तीन तलाक की विवादित प्रथा एक ऐसा उपकरण है जो इसे बचाने के लिए सुलह के प्रयास के बिना पति की सनक पर वैवाहिक बंधन को तोड़ने की अनुमति देता है, इसलिए तलाक का यह रूप अनुच्छेद 14 का उल्लंघन करता है और इसे रद्द किया जा सकता है। सायरा बानो बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया का प्रकरण तीन तलाक यानि तलाक-ए-बिद्दत से सम्बन्धित था जिसमें माननीय न्यायालय के समक्ष मुख्य रूप से निम्न बिन्दु विचारणीय थे - (i) क्या तलाक-ए-बिद्दत मुस्लिम धर्म की स्वतंत्रता का एक आवश्यक अंग है ? (ii) क्या यह कुरान की व्यवस्था के अनुरूप है ? (iii) क्या यह मुस्लिम महिलाओं के मूल अधिकार का अतिलंघन करता है? (iv) क्या यह तत्काल प्रभावी एवं अविखण्डनीय होने से मनमाना अर्थात् स्वेच्छाचारी है ? (v) क्या यह मुस्लिम महिलाओं के लिए विभेदकारी है ? प्रकरण के तथ्य - संक्षेप में प्रकरण के तथ्य इस प्रकार है कि सायरा बानो (पिटिश्नर) की शादी (निकाह) दिनांक 11-04-2001 को इलाहाबाद में रिजवान अहमद के साथ मुस्लिम रीति-रिवाज अनुसार निकाह पढ़ सम्पन्न हुआ था और उनके वैवाहिक सम्बन्धो से दो सन्तान यथा मोहम्मद इरफान एवं उमेरा नाज हुई, जो दोनों संताने सायरा बानो (पिटिशनर) के साथ रह रही थी । सायरा बानो के पति रिजवान अहमद का यह कहना था कि सायरा बानो अक्सर अपने माता-पिता के साथ रहने के लिए चली जाया करती थी और दिनांक 9-04-2015 को सायरा बानो अपने पति को साहचर्य से वंचित कर अपने माता-पिता के पास चली गई। रिजवान अहमद ने उसे वापस आने के लिए कई बार फोन किये तथा वह उसे लेने के लिए सायरा बानो के पीहर (माता पिता) के घर भी गया लेकिन दिनांक 9-08-2015 को सायरा बानो ने अपने पति (रिजवान अहमद) के पास आकर रहने से साफ तौर पर मना कर दिया। उसके बाद पति की ओर से दाम्पत्य अधिकारों की पुनर्स्थापना की याचिका भी पेश की गई, लेकिन बात नहीं बनी। अन्त में दिनांक 10-10-2015 को रिजवान अहमद द्वारा तलाकनामा निष्पादित करते हुए सायरा बानो (पिटिश्नर) को तलाक दे दिया गया। रिजवान अहमद द्वारा पिटिशनर को तीन तलाक देते हुए यह कहा गया कि, "मैं तुम्हें तलाक देता हूँ, तलाक देता हूँ, तलाक देता हूँ। आज से तुम मेरे लिए हराम हो, मैं तुम्हारे लिए हराम हूँ। अब तुम अपना जीवन यापन स्वतंत्रता पूर्वक किसी भी प्रकार कर सकती हो।" Read More -  शायरा बानो बनाम भारत संघ केस सारांश 2017 एस.सी.सी Read the full article

[newswatchindia]

Why did Sharad Pawar warn Maharashtra government on Bilkis Bano case?

Bilkis Bano Case: Now the Supreme Court has declared the release of the accused in the Bilkis Bano rape case as wrong and has given a decision to send them back to jail within two weeks. In such a situation, the possibility of this has increased.

[go-4-legal]

Latest with the latest Supreme Court Judgments. Read through our comprehensive collection of court decisions and legal documents, with easy-to-understand summaries and full transcripts of each judgment.

More Information about this Judgment👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼 https://shorturl.at/fkE36

See All Supreme Court Judgments in one place 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼 https://www.go4legal.in

[judgementstoday]

Top Supreme Court Judgements Given In January 2023

The Supreme Court of India delivered verdicts on some of the most important cases in January 2023. Below is a list of all the decisions made by them:

January 18, 2023

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) is mandatory for all government servants. The bench also ruled Supreme Court judgements that the PRAN can be used to draw pension and other benefits.

The court said it was impossible to provide pensions without a PRAN number, as it provides an easy way for people to access their accounts online.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the Permanent Retirement Account Number (PRAN) is mandatory for all government servants. This means that all government employees have to have a PRAN. Otherwise, they will be unable to take their dues and pension payments.

The purpose of this number is to identify the employees and their entitlements, such as wages, leave benefits and provident fund contributions, which must be made available by employers within 30 days from their date of joining or even before their date of joining if required by them.

January 23, 2023

The Supreme Court overrules its Supreme Court cases in the Aruna Shanbaug case, saying passive euthanasia is constitutional in India. It sets up a comprehensive procedure for withdrawal of treatment and passive euthanasia.

Supreme Court also says that even if a person is not physically fit to live, he should continue to live with dignity till his death occurs due to natural causes or the process of natural decay takes place without any medical intervention being required on his behalf of him.

Constitution Bench overrules the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in the Aruna Shanbaug case and says that passive euthanasia is constitutional in India. It sets up a comprehensive procedure for withdrawal of treatment and passive euthanasia.

The Supreme Court overruled 2019 Supreme Court decisions in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which said passive euthanasia is unconstitutional. It sets up a comprehensive procedure for withdrawal of treatment and passive euthanasia.

In February 2023, the court also ruled that medical professionals can refuse to treat patients on the grounds of conscience even if they work in government hospitals or other institutions funded by public money.

January 26, 2023

The Supreme Court holds that the Citizenship Amendment Act is constitutionally valid, but the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is unconstitutional.

The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 was passed by Parliament and became an Act on January 26, 2019. It lays down a new legal framework for granting citizenship to Indian nationals who were born in Assam or any other state subject to conditions like having at least one parent who was an Indian citizen at the time of birth and having lived there for seven years continuously after attaining majority (18 years).

Three-judge bench rulings of the Supreme Court on the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens. It holds that the CAA is constitutionally valid, but NRC is unconstitutional as it will lead to massive harassment, mass detention, etc.

The Supreme Court also held that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is constitutionally valid but that the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which is a list of all Indian citizens residing in Assam and other states, is unconstitutional as it will lead to massive harassment, mass detention and other violations of the right to liberty.

A group of petitioners challenged the NRC under Article 32, which prohibits violating fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The Latest Supreme Court case was argued before a three-judge bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan along with Justice S A Bobde, who was assigned additional charge after Justice NV Ramana retired on December 31 last year.

January 31, 2023

A five-judge Constitutional bench was formed to decide on the Ayodhya land dispute, and this landmark decision by the Supreme Court was given on January 31, 2023.

The court ruled that dividing the land between two parties was impossible and directed the Central Government to set up a trust and hand over the site to them.

Judgment of Supreme Court on Ayodhya land dispute. The Latest Supreme Court judgments were pronounced by a five-judge Constitutional bench which held that dividing the land between two parties was impossible. Hence, it directed the Central Government to set up a trust and hand over the site to them.

The judgment was pronounced by a five-judge Constitutional bench which held that dividing the land between two parties was impossible. Hence, it directed the Central Government to set up a trust and hand over the site to them.

The court said Hindus should be given access to their religious places per their rights under Articles 14, 15(1) and 25 of the Constitution. It also noted that Muslims had been denied access over centuries at Ayodhya, but Hindus have been able to pray at other places without any hindrance from anyone.

A Lot of Big Issues were Resolved by the Supreme Court this Month.

The Supreme Court has been busy this month. It has resolved many big issues that were pending before the apex court. The Supreme Court has been very active in taking up matters that require immediate attention and are important for society or individuals who may be affected by them.

We hope you enjoyed reading these Latest Supreme Court rulings. If you want to read more about what happened in January 2023, check out blog posts and other content on the Judgements Today website.

[indialegal7]

Justice Dipankar Datta sworn in as Judge of Supreme Court

JusticeDipankarDatta #DipankarDatta #SupremeCourtJudge #SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtNews #LatestNews #IndiaLegal #LegalNews #IndiaLegalLive

[abhousingrealtypvtltd]

Freedom of the press is the mortar that binds together the bricks of democracy- and it is also the open window embedded in those bricks.

#abhousingrealtypvtltd

#pressfreedom #journalism #freepress #humanrights #freedomofspeech #reporterswithoutborders #media #journalist #worldpressfreedomday #press #reporterssansfrontieres #humanrightswatch #news #lawsociety #democracy #judiciary #societyofprofessionaljournalists #freedom #supremecourtjudgement

[khassidi-blog]

#supremecourtjudgement on @electoralcommission_ghana vrs @ndcghana . https://www.instagram.com/p/CB2_2gzJndC/?igshid=17m9v9ny4pjx9

[contrinophoto]

#lgbtq🌈 #victory #supremecourtjudgement https://www.instagram.com/p/CBevqASgvl2/?igshid=1aiawr2igoz35

[lawfultalks]

#SupremeCourtJudgement #EvidenceAct #CriminalLaw #CaseLaws #IndianCaseLaws #Evidence #Crime #SCJudgement #SC #SupremeCourtOfIndia #Lawyer #LawStudent #Law #LawOfLand #IndianEvidenceAct #EvidenceAct1872 (at New Delhi, India)

[go-4-legal]

Latest with the latest Supreme Court Judgments. Read through our comprehensive collection of court decisions and legal documents, with easy-to-understand summaries and full transcripts of each judgment.

More Information about this Judgment👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼 https://shorturl.at/cdkru

See All Supreme Court Judgments in one place 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼 https://www.go4legal.in

[judgementstoday]

What Is The Difference Between The Jurisdiction Of The Supreme Court And High Court?

In this blog, we will investigate the differences between the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court of India. The Supreme Court is India's highest court, while the High Court is the court of appeal for all the states in India. We will explore the difference in jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and High Court and discuss the rights available to citizens based on these differences. We will also examine how the Supreme Court and High Court interact and collaborate to ensure justice is served in the Indian legal system. With this knowledge, readers will be better informed of the legal rights available to them and how to access the justice system in India. We will also explore the processes and procedures for filing appeals and the deadlines for those appeals.

Finally, we will discuss how the Supreme Court and the High Court of India interact with other judicial systems and their role in international law. This blog will provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the differences between the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Court of India and the rights available to citizens.

Overview of the Two Courts in India, their Respective Origins, and their Differences

The two highest courts in India are the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of India. The Supreme Court of India is the highest in the country and is the final court of appeal for all Supreme Court judgements from the High Courts and other courts. The High Court of India is the highest court of appeals for claims from the lower courts in the respective state. The Supreme Court and High Courts have different jurisdictions and are distinct.

Discuss the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and its Role in the Indian Judicial System

The Supreme Court of India is the land's highest court and has the ultimate authority on all judicial matters in the country. The Supreme Court can hear Latest Supreme Court judgments from all High Courts and lower courts. It also acts as the foremost interpreter of the Constitution of India.

Discuss the jurisdiction of the High Court and its role in the Indian judicial system.

The High Courts in India are the states' and union territories' leading judicial authorities. They can hear appeals from subordinate courts; interpret laws passed by the Parliament and state legislatures, and issue writs for enforcing Fundamental Rights.

The Difference between the Two Courts in Terms of their Jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of India is the country's highest court of appeal and is the Constitution's final interpreter.

The Supreme Court has the power to declare any law unconstitutional if it finds that it violates the fundamental rights of citizens.

The Supreme Court also has appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from the High Courts and the other intermediate courts in the country.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court of India is the apex court of India with exclusive powers, the High Court of India has jurisdiction over the entire state. It exercises all the powers of a Indian case laws, including that of a civil court. Therefore, the Supreme Court and the High Court of India are crucial for the functioning of the judicial system and the protection of the rule of law.

[abstarnews]

अयोध्या मामले पर मध्यस्थता पैनल ने पेश की दूसरी रिपोर्ट | AB Star News https://bit.ly/35FWNga #hindinews #breakingnews #top10news #noidanews #trendingnews #latestnews #ayodhya #jaishriram #SupremeCourtjudgement https://www.instagram.com/p/B3t7IqhjQti/?igshid=1gv5whmr216cp